Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Max amps would be a dead short, at 0 ohms load. Their numbers suggest a line resistance of .02 ohm.

If you assume 1 ohm for the person in circuit (wet hands and standing in water) with .02 ohm line resistance, you'd get maybe 460 amps at 470 volts. Amps would go up rapidly as your skin resistance failed further, while voltage would drop more slowly.

The label is misused. 480 VAC is medium voltage according to the NEC, and personal protective equipment (PPE) absolutely works with 480. Electrical tape would be enough. Dry gloves, rubber gloves, even bare hands if you're wearing dry shoes (and only touch one leg) would work. I'd expect that label at several KVAC or higher.

Max amps would be a dead short, at 0 ohms load. Their numbers suggest a line resistance of .02 ohm.

If you assume 1 ohm for the person in circuit (wet hands and standing in water) with .02 ohm line resistance, you'd get maybe 460 amps at 470 volts. Amps would go up rapidly as your skin resistance failed further, while voltage would drop more slowly.

The label is misused. 480 VAC is medium voltage according to the NEC, and personal protective equipment (PPE) absolutely works with 480. Electrical tape would be enough. Dry gloves, rubber gloves, even bare hands if you're wearing dry shoes (and only touch one leg) would work. I'd expect that label at several KVAC or higher.

In my experience the use of signage around dangerous electrical systems tends to be as (excuse the pun) inflammatory as possible. It either gets your attention or it's useless. Having felt what 1200 watts going through your finger tip is like (not fun at all!) from an accidental contact inside something called a "cold compartment" - without signage - I get the point.

Impressive he could eject sideways so close to the ground and land in one piece.

It looks like the pilot initiated the ejection only after he was confident the aircraft was going down in the infield and not on a runway (or in a crowd). I still wouldn't want to be him, but I have to take my hat off to him.

Modern fighters feature what's called a "zero/zero" ejection seat. The name refers to zero altitude, zero speed, and indicates that the seat will work correctly even if it is actuated sitting still on the tarmac.

The sideways nature of that ejection is certainly remarkable. but notice that you can see the seat's rocket motors orient the pilot more vertically and then get him going straight up. This is how it actually saved his life.

The seats in the FA-18 are called the Mk 14 NACES (Navy Aircrew Common Ejection Seat), built by Martin-Baker and are of the latest generation of zero/zero seats in US operation. USAF uses ACES (Advanced Concept Ejection Seat) models, made by United Technologies (originally developed by McDonell-Douglas); currently the F-16, A-10 and F-22, along with both the B1 and B2 use the ACES II seat.

Wiki says that the minimum altitude for an ACES II seat to work INVERTED is 140 feet at a speed of 150 knots. (let that sink in...at 140 feet, the seat will get you out from under the airplane and then to an altitude that the parachute will save your life. I can't find any specifics for the seat in an FA-18, but I'll bet they're very similar.

A very spectacular whoops, but fascinating for all the tech that went into saving lives - both the pilot's and anyone else's around the incident.

Trunk stuff, car stuff, car itself...it's all wrecked. That won't buff out, though there's probably a little bit of salvage value in there somewhere. Not enough to pay for the MUCH higher insurance he just earned himself. Good job, Spanky!